LA PREMIERE
11/05/18
UPGRADE NEW
website
review by Gab Brech
Upgrade provides a thrilling and alarming insight into the direction which technology may take in the (not too distant?) future. It seemed a fitting concept, with the recent unveiling of Apple Artificial-Intelligence and the alarm expressed over its ‘human’ quality. Upgrade demonstrated a concept which parallels these developments, with the main character ‘Grey’, a quadriplegic getting an’ experimental computer chip ‘Stem’ implanted to aid his recovery. The film is enough to make any technophobe quiver and anxious about future technology. Not a film for those squeamish about blood either, with violent and graphic scenes adding to the intensity the film creates.
7/10
website
review by Gab Brech
Upgrade provides a thrilling and alarming insight into the direction which technology may take in the (not too distant?) future. It seemed a fitting concept, with the recent unveiling of Apple Artificial-Intelligence and the alarm expressed over its ‘human’ quality. Upgrade demonstrated a concept which parallels these developments, with the main character ‘Grey’, a quadriplegic getting an’ experimental computer chip ‘Stem’ implanted to aid his recovery. The film is enough to make any technophobe quiver and anxious about future technology. Not a film for those squeamish about blood either, with violent and graphic scenes adding to the intensity the film creates.
7/10
THE BOOKSHOP NEW
website
review by Jeanette Russell
Thanks for the opportunity to review this film. I found it quite enchanting and interesting. Particularly towards the end where there is a few surprises and twists in the story that I was not expecting.
Its a dramatic movie but there is some lighthearted moments too, which breaks things up.
Set in the 1950s in an English town the story is about Florence Green who after losing her husband has set her sights on opening a bookshop in her rural home town. Played brilliantly by Emily Mortimer, Florence is determined despite many an obstacle to make a go of her new venture. An unlikely ally is Mr Brundish portrayed by Bill Nighy, who does a marvelous job. He is a man who is very reclusive and hard to get close too , having been on his own for many years. The older gent doesn't really get on with others but develops a real fondness for Florence, as they share the love of literature. Patricia Clarkson plays Violet who is very vengeful and is trying to oppose the bookshop at every turn. Honor Kneafsey does a stellar job playing Christine, Florence's young helper, who is wise beyond her years and a very enterprising child.
The film is narrated by Julie Christie, she delivers an incisive description and is an outstanding storyteller. It was directed by Isabel Coixet who also did the screenplay. The story was adapted from a novel by Penelope Fitzgerald. My companion has said she thought the scenery was beautiful, and the use of the narrator was nice. She liked how the story was told simply without much music or background noise, so that she was able to think about how the characters were feeling and thinking.
I found it a thought provoking story especially insightful about human nature. I liked how it seemed we could get to know the characters, and gain some awareness about their emotions and how they may be feeling. It was a movie I feel is well worth seeing, and I found it very entertaining.
website
review by Jeanette Russell
Thanks for the opportunity to review this film. I found it quite enchanting and interesting. Particularly towards the end where there is a few surprises and twists in the story that I was not expecting.
Its a dramatic movie but there is some lighthearted moments too, which breaks things up.
Set in the 1950s in an English town the story is about Florence Green who after losing her husband has set her sights on opening a bookshop in her rural home town. Played brilliantly by Emily Mortimer, Florence is determined despite many an obstacle to make a go of her new venture. An unlikely ally is Mr Brundish portrayed by Bill Nighy, who does a marvelous job. He is a man who is very reclusive and hard to get close too , having been on his own for many years. The older gent doesn't really get on with others but develops a real fondness for Florence, as they share the love of literature. Patricia Clarkson plays Violet who is very vengeful and is trying to oppose the bookshop at every turn. Honor Kneafsey does a stellar job playing Christine, Florence's young helper, who is wise beyond her years and a very enterprising child.
The film is narrated by Julie Christie, she delivers an incisive description and is an outstanding storyteller. It was directed by Isabel Coixet who also did the screenplay. The story was adapted from a novel by Penelope Fitzgerald. My companion has said she thought the scenery was beautiful, and the use of the narrator was nice. She liked how the story was told simply without much music or background noise, so that she was able to think about how the characters were feeling and thinking.
I found it a thought provoking story especially insightful about human nature. I liked how it seemed we could get to know the characters, and gain some awareness about their emotions and how they may be feeling. It was a movie I feel is well worth seeing, and I found it very entertaining.
AURORE NEW
Palace Films website
RATE: 7/10
The story line is very simple: a single / divorced woman who just lost her job and lives with two daughters who is about to become a grandma suddenly meets a love of her youth and it feels like she has to take of herself first and forget about the others; she should start her life from scratch no matter what. It is never too late it seems.
Aurore seems to be no one, she unnoticeable, no one needs her. She is waiting for the rubbish truck to arrive to take her over to the huge garbage dump. Aurore is lost, he is facing one of those existential moments of life when she feels there is no life. She also lost the hope to find the man of her life, the love of her life. They all seem so shallow for her: there is no friendship,there is no connection between her and the men she meets. Simple and boring routine of life start to take over. Christofe comes like a sip of the fresh water a fresh breath of clean air in her life. They do not need to talk much, they know each other from their youth, the powerful connection between the two seems so grand that they both hesitate to take it as a truth. the truth overwhelms them both. They fall apart but days pass one after another and they make a decision - both in one day. Their love is youthful as it used to be - it never faded with years. Will they stay together ?
Palace Films website
RATE: 7/10
The story line is very simple: a single / divorced woman who just lost her job and lives with two daughters who is about to become a grandma suddenly meets a love of her youth and it feels like she has to take of herself first and forget about the others; she should start her life from scratch no matter what. It is never too late it seems.
Aurore seems to be no one, she unnoticeable, no one needs her. She is waiting for the rubbish truck to arrive to take her over to the huge garbage dump. Aurore is lost, he is facing one of those existential moments of life when she feels there is no life. She also lost the hope to find the man of her life, the love of her life. They all seem so shallow for her: there is no friendship,there is no connection between her and the men she meets. Simple and boring routine of life start to take over. Christofe comes like a sip of the fresh water a fresh breath of clean air in her life. They do not need to talk much, they know each other from their youth, the powerful connection between the two seems so grand that they both hesitate to take it as a truth. the truth overwhelms them both. They fall apart but days pass one after another and they make a decision - both in one day. Their love is youthful as it used to be - it never faded with years. Will they stay together ?
BROTHER'S NEST NEW
MBPublicity
RATE: 7/10
MBPublicity
RATE: 7/10
KODACHROME NEW
Icon Films
review by Susan Reynolds
Kodachrome
Netflix
U.S. Drama
5.5/10
Ed Harris was outstanding as dying man Ben Ryder a world renowned Photographer. Career obsessed Ben was mainly absent as a father to Matt Ryder (Jason Sudeikis) and had been adulterous to his wife. Ben was taken care of by attractive nurse Zooey (Elizabeth Olsen) who administered his injectable drugs for cancer. Zooey arrived at Matt’s office one day requesting Matt take his father on a long road trip to process his last remaining film before the Kodachrome lab ceases production.
Matt refused the offer as he said he has no time for his dying father that is until his father’s colleague convinces him with a bribe. This offer would secure some work for him. Matt is desperately struggling in his career so he reluctantly agrees.
The road trip had Matt, Zooey and Ben go on a week long drive to Kansas. They diverted on the way to visit Matt’s brother and his family. The trip reveals the issues of family dysfunction and intensifies relationship issues and brewing problems.
This movie was a strain to watch apart from the few scenes reflective dialogue and the excellent acting from Ed Harris. It was for most part predictable. I can’t really say that the other co-stars were believable at times. ...Exaggerated brow lifting by Matt and his wide eyed animations weren’t natural to me and Zooey just didn’t feel 100% immersed in the role.
Additionally the onscreen chemistry was lacking and the couple mismatched in my estimation. The shortfalls made this very much a B grade film. The music was fun and a scene about musical choices was endearing but the overall experience especially towards the end was when will it be over.
Screen gems were “no art worth a damn was created out of happiness” where Ben cynically questions the whole phenomenon of genius and suggests there being some other negative driving force in people like Picasso.
Other interesting quotes about were about photographers “We’re preservationists by nature. We take pictures to stop time; to commit moments to eternity”
I enjoyed Ben lovingly cleaning his Leica and the nostalgia for times gone. His description of nothing left to this modern age in images or slides and modern media as “just data electronic dust” was engaging; this was in keeping with his desire to reject technology
Courtesy of Sue
Icon Films
review by Susan Reynolds
Kodachrome
Netflix
U.S. Drama
5.5/10
Ed Harris was outstanding as dying man Ben Ryder a world renowned Photographer. Career obsessed Ben was mainly absent as a father to Matt Ryder (Jason Sudeikis) and had been adulterous to his wife. Ben was taken care of by attractive nurse Zooey (Elizabeth Olsen) who administered his injectable drugs for cancer. Zooey arrived at Matt’s office one day requesting Matt take his father on a long road trip to process his last remaining film before the Kodachrome lab ceases production.
Matt refused the offer as he said he has no time for his dying father that is until his father’s colleague convinces him with a bribe. This offer would secure some work for him. Matt is desperately struggling in his career so he reluctantly agrees.
The road trip had Matt, Zooey and Ben go on a week long drive to Kansas. They diverted on the way to visit Matt’s brother and his family. The trip reveals the issues of family dysfunction and intensifies relationship issues and brewing problems.
This movie was a strain to watch apart from the few scenes reflective dialogue and the excellent acting from Ed Harris. It was for most part predictable. I can’t really say that the other co-stars were believable at times. ...Exaggerated brow lifting by Matt and his wide eyed animations weren’t natural to me and Zooey just didn’t feel 100% immersed in the role.
Additionally the onscreen chemistry was lacking and the couple mismatched in my estimation. The shortfalls made this very much a B grade film. The music was fun and a scene about musical choices was endearing but the overall experience especially towards the end was when will it be over.
Screen gems were “no art worth a damn was created out of happiness” where Ben cynically questions the whole phenomenon of genius and suggests there being some other negative driving force in people like Picasso.
Other interesting quotes about were about photographers “We’re preservationists by nature. We take pictures to stop time; to commit moments to eternity”
I enjoyed Ben lovingly cleaning his Leica and the nostalgia for times gone. His description of nothing left to this modern age in images or slides and modern media as “just data electronic dust” was engaging; this was in keeping with his desire to reject technology
Courtesy of Sue
UPGRADE NEW
Madman website
review by Garielle Grech
Madman website
review by Garielle Grech
UNSANE
Jacs PR
review by Susan Reynolds
“Unsane”
9/10
Review by Susan Reynolds
Genre: American Psychological Thriller (Horror).
Directed by: Steven Soderbergh
Written by: Jonathan Bernstein and James Greer.
Starring: Claire Foy, Joshua Leonard, Jay Pharoah, Juno Temple, Aimee Mullins, and Amy Irving.
Filmed on iPhone 7 Plus.
Sawyer Valentini moved to a city far from her family to seek a new start. For all intents and purposes her life seemed normal but first appearances can be deceptive. Sawyer swiped for a Tinder date and took the guy home. She initiated all the moves then suddenly had a disturbing meltdown. Thereafter she decided to seek help with a Counsellor at the Highland Creek Behavioural Centre.
Disturbingly Sawyer accidentally signed herself into 48 hours of observation; the last thing she wanted. Her ensuing complaints came to nothing as she eventually learned the mental health system was corrupt; funds are extorted from patients via their health insurance companies. For as long as the insurance companies pay the individuals are imprisoned.
Sawyer’s predicament worsened when she was unable to control her anger; this resulted in her being seen as further in need of incarceration. Her impulsivity and anger at times meant she was own worse enemy. Is her short fuse part of what she hadn’t resolved from previous events in her life? Is this stalker she sees in the facility real or imagined?
Sawyer Valentini is portrayed as a person who is quite assertive independent and resilient in the general scheme of things. We see this at the beginning of the film; handling problem calls at work and her boss’s creepy behavior. Her mother also talks of her of independent tough and stubborn streak when she visits her at the mental facility. I think that Sawyer’s abilities to read people combined with her intelligence and other positive attributes help her in survive.
The film is about powerlessness and loss of self when caught in situations. It’s about the diabolically unlucky effects we can have if we encounter the wrong people. There’s an educative element for the viewers concerning this in the cameo appearance by Matt Damon.
The movie made me think about obsession how this characteristic in individuals can be a positive driving force to achieve goals. But in others with an unsound mind it can lead to the unthinkable.
It’s also about that point where the results of trauma can be inexplicably woven into a person’s psyche to cause paranoia that can tip someone way over the edge.
The film raises questions of health system corruption, the use of drugs to control people’s behaviour. The film has a frighteningly plausible story.
Jacs PR
review by Susan Reynolds
“Unsane”
9/10
Review by Susan Reynolds
Genre: American Psychological Thriller (Horror).
Directed by: Steven Soderbergh
Written by: Jonathan Bernstein and James Greer.
Starring: Claire Foy, Joshua Leonard, Jay Pharoah, Juno Temple, Aimee Mullins, and Amy Irving.
Filmed on iPhone 7 Plus.
Sawyer Valentini moved to a city far from her family to seek a new start. For all intents and purposes her life seemed normal but first appearances can be deceptive. Sawyer swiped for a Tinder date and took the guy home. She initiated all the moves then suddenly had a disturbing meltdown. Thereafter she decided to seek help with a Counsellor at the Highland Creek Behavioural Centre.
Disturbingly Sawyer accidentally signed herself into 48 hours of observation; the last thing she wanted. Her ensuing complaints came to nothing as she eventually learned the mental health system was corrupt; funds are extorted from patients via their health insurance companies. For as long as the insurance companies pay the individuals are imprisoned.
Sawyer’s predicament worsened when she was unable to control her anger; this resulted in her being seen as further in need of incarceration. Her impulsivity and anger at times meant she was own worse enemy. Is her short fuse part of what she hadn’t resolved from previous events in her life? Is this stalker she sees in the facility real or imagined?
Sawyer Valentini is portrayed as a person who is quite assertive independent and resilient in the general scheme of things. We see this at the beginning of the film; handling problem calls at work and her boss’s creepy behavior. Her mother also talks of her of independent tough and stubborn streak when she visits her at the mental facility. I think that Sawyer’s abilities to read people combined with her intelligence and other positive attributes help her in survive.
The film is about powerlessness and loss of self when caught in situations. It’s about the diabolically unlucky effects we can have if we encounter the wrong people. There’s an educative element for the viewers concerning this in the cameo appearance by Matt Damon.
The movie made me think about obsession how this characteristic in individuals can be a positive driving force to achieve goals. But in others with an unsound mind it can lead to the unthinkable.
It’s also about that point where the results of trauma can be inexplicably woven into a person’s psyche to cause paranoia that can tip someone way over the edge.
The film raises questions of health system corruption, the use of drugs to control people’s behaviour. The film has a frighteningly plausible story.
CAT ON THE HOT TIN ROOF NEW
sharmill films
review by Jeanette Russell
Thanks for the opportunity to review the play by Tennessee Williams's. Filmed in London's West end, at the Young Vic theatre, it presents well on the screen. Sienna Miller as Maggie does a stellar performance, as does Jack O'Connell as Brick. The film builds in intensity, but we have humour too, to break things up. Directed by Benedict Andrews this production is well worth a look.
The atmosphere is lovely at the Nova cinema in Carlton, and very comfortable seating too. Tension rises through the play till the end as we find out what is going on with the characters. Maggie and Brick are having marital problems. Brick's father whose life is in question is portrayed brilliantly by Colm Meaney. His children particularly Gooper ( Brick's brother ) and his wife Mae are trying to get their hands on the huge inheritance. Arguments ensue , there is mayheim , and some eyeopening realities as the characters bare their soles during the film.
A brilliant job done by all the actors, a great revival of the play.
It starts today at 1 pm and runs until at least the 16th of May.
Details as follows:
http://www.cinemanova.com.au/films/nt-live-cat-on-a-hot-tin-roof
sharmill films
review by Jeanette Russell
Thanks for the opportunity to review the play by Tennessee Williams's. Filmed in London's West end, at the Young Vic theatre, it presents well on the screen. Sienna Miller as Maggie does a stellar performance, as does Jack O'Connell as Brick. The film builds in intensity, but we have humour too, to break things up. Directed by Benedict Andrews this production is well worth a look.
The atmosphere is lovely at the Nova cinema in Carlton, and very comfortable seating too. Tension rises through the play till the end as we find out what is going on with the characters. Maggie and Brick are having marital problems. Brick's father whose life is in question is portrayed brilliantly by Colm Meaney. His children particularly Gooper ( Brick's brother ) and his wife Mae are trying to get their hands on the huge inheritance. Arguments ensue , there is mayheim , and some eyeopening realities as the characters bare their soles during the film.
A brilliant job done by all the actors, a great revival of the play.
It starts today at 1 pm and runs until at least the 16th of May.
Details as follows:
http://www.cinemanova.com.au/films/nt-live-cat-on-a-hot-tin-roof
MIDNIGHT OIL NEW
madman
review by Max Lyons
Midnight Oil 1984
By Maxwell M. Lyons
Midnight Oil 1984 is an autobiographical documentary about Australian rock legends Midnight Oil and their impact on Australia’s political climate during the early ‘80s. Directed by Ray Argall, who worked with the band between 1982 and 1986, the film showcases a line-up of never before seen footage documenting the band’s journey from unknown politically evocative musicians to culturally influential figures in the nuclear arms race of the time. Most notably, it offers a first-hand perspective on lead singer Peter Garrett’s attempts at transitioning from outspoken commentator to official senate representative (as member of the Nuclear Disarmament Party) in his passionate drive to better the future of Australia.
Whilst seemingly touted as an all-access pass to the band’s ins and outs, high and lows of the time, it offers but a tame retelling of events cut with footage of live concerts, backstage tomfoolery, and miscellaneous political activism. It fails to push any real boundaries or delve deeper into the nitty gritty of the band’s affairs during what was such an emotionally charged period. Not to say it’s not informative or entertaining, it just lacked the provocation you’d hope for in a film about Garrett’s proselytisation from the stage.
Despite this, the film showed its strength in full force as it flaunted a consistent montage of live concert footage; eccentric dancing, sweet puddles, and all. It didn’t exactly do a whole lot in reinforcing the significance of the band’s impact throughout the period’s events, but I can’t deny it was entertaining as hell.
All in all, Midnight Oil 1984 was a fairly enjoyable watch. I’m personally a fan of the band and so learning a little about their history (albeit fairly surface level) was rather interesting. In saying that, however, the narrative presented didn’t have a whole lot of substance to it, with the majority of the film’s 90-minute runtime padded with footage from live concerts. It could easily have been cut down by a good 30-minutes, and honestly, despite the enjoyment derived, the film ultimately didn’t justify a theatrical release. Made-for-TV documentaries aren’t all bad, and Midnight Oil 1984 would have felt right at home among them. If you’re a fan of Midnight Oil, then at the very least you’ll enjoy the live concert footage, but for those less than fold of their music and more interested in the documentary aspect, you’ll likely be disappointed by the shallow scope of the film.
madman
review by Max Lyons
Midnight Oil 1984
By Maxwell M. Lyons
Midnight Oil 1984 is an autobiographical documentary about Australian rock legends Midnight Oil and their impact on Australia’s political climate during the early ‘80s. Directed by Ray Argall, who worked with the band between 1982 and 1986, the film showcases a line-up of never before seen footage documenting the band’s journey from unknown politically evocative musicians to culturally influential figures in the nuclear arms race of the time. Most notably, it offers a first-hand perspective on lead singer Peter Garrett’s attempts at transitioning from outspoken commentator to official senate representative (as member of the Nuclear Disarmament Party) in his passionate drive to better the future of Australia.
Whilst seemingly touted as an all-access pass to the band’s ins and outs, high and lows of the time, it offers but a tame retelling of events cut with footage of live concerts, backstage tomfoolery, and miscellaneous political activism. It fails to push any real boundaries or delve deeper into the nitty gritty of the band’s affairs during what was such an emotionally charged period. Not to say it’s not informative or entertaining, it just lacked the provocation you’d hope for in a film about Garrett’s proselytisation from the stage.
Despite this, the film showed its strength in full force as it flaunted a consistent montage of live concert footage; eccentric dancing, sweet puddles, and all. It didn’t exactly do a whole lot in reinforcing the significance of the band’s impact throughout the period’s events, but I can’t deny it was entertaining as hell.
All in all, Midnight Oil 1984 was a fairly enjoyable watch. I’m personally a fan of the band and so learning a little about their history (albeit fairly surface level) was rather interesting. In saying that, however, the narrative presented didn’t have a whole lot of substance to it, with the majority of the film’s 90-minute runtime padded with footage from live concerts. It could easily have been cut down by a good 30-minutes, and honestly, despite the enjoyment derived, the film ultimately didn’t justify a theatrical release. Made-for-TV documentaries aren’t all bad, and Midnight Oil 1984 would have felt right at home among them. If you’re a fan of Midnight Oil, then at the very least you’ll enjoy the live concert footage, but for those less than fold of their music and more interested in the documentary aspect, you’ll likely be disappointed by the shallow scope of the film.
FRIENDS , FOES AND FIREWORKS
website
www.nexusproductiongroup.com
www.daughterstkilda.com
www.friendsfoesfireworks.com
review by Susan Reynolds
“Friends, Foes and Fireworks”
Review by Susan Reynolds
Genre Indie Film
Sub-genre Mumblecore
Nexus Production Group
7.5/10
The film has a real slice of life approach, intrinsically very Australian in character however the themes of friendship and relationships are universal. Filmed in the festive summer season; the accents and the locality are all going to really stir interest with those gripped at the same time of year by cold in the Northern hemisphere. It’s all there; the beach, the heat, summer night, young party spirited people and the New Years fireworks. Significance is not lost on the fact that the filmmakers are travelling between two hemispheres. To their European friends it’s somewhat a statement of how the other half lives.
In the story the friends are actors by profession with the exception of Dan who is a Musician. Friendships end up in a tangle near the St.Kilda beach late at night and loose lips as we know sinks ships resulting in friendships taking a nosedive. Some angry and emotional conversations took place. The friendships are tested in the climax of an alcohol fuelled New Years Eve. An exciting element of the film is that actors improvised scenes through sparsely allocated script points. This process means a refreshing creative freedom for actors.
In the opening scenes I did feel like I was sitting in the corner of the flat in a parallel universe with an inability to talk and join in. I felt a sense of voyeurism; being privy to personal conversations and goings on. There’s no boredom with trivialities because you felt an affinity with it all, a seemingly odd sense of inclusion. The characters themselves grappled with moments of awkwardness. This is not deliberate but adds to the feeling of reality. Many of us have milliseconds of silence and gibber.
The content of the film makes one think of how tenuous relationships are and the hurt people are capable of. In the case of Sophia and Fiona it’s not fireworks that go off.....more like Sophia let’s off an emotional hand grenade that leaves both worlds blown apart. Truth is often stranger than fiction; this is believable with the acts of single mindedness and selfishness involved. Should Sophia have kept quiet is a moral dilemma to add to the moral dilemma itself.
At a different time and situation would all have revealed itself so easily. It’s not just wine that’s spilt; secrets and insults better left untold pour out. Conversations sent emotions reeling and people did get hurt. Did vulnerability in the circumstances lead Zoe to actions she might not normally do. What absurd creatures humans can be!
Which brings me to Dan the only man! ….thrown into the mix of all these women and grated on everyone’s nerves or was it just mine; with his convincing smarminess. He’d tried to ingratiate himself with the women through much of the film.
There’s a mix of everything; what seemed like unrequited love between Lucinda and Summer to feelings of lack of self worth with Fiona’s actions in the mirror scenes.
I enjoyed the film for its unique approach and look forward to future entertaining flicks.
website
www.nexusproductiongroup.com
www.daughterstkilda.com
www.friendsfoesfireworks.com
review by Susan Reynolds
“Friends, Foes and Fireworks”
Review by Susan Reynolds
Genre Indie Film
Sub-genre Mumblecore
Nexus Production Group
7.5/10
The film has a real slice of life approach, intrinsically very Australian in character however the themes of friendship and relationships are universal. Filmed in the festive summer season; the accents and the locality are all going to really stir interest with those gripped at the same time of year by cold in the Northern hemisphere. It’s all there; the beach, the heat, summer night, young party spirited people and the New Years fireworks. Significance is not lost on the fact that the filmmakers are travelling between two hemispheres. To their European friends it’s somewhat a statement of how the other half lives.
In the story the friends are actors by profession with the exception of Dan who is a Musician. Friendships end up in a tangle near the St.Kilda beach late at night and loose lips as we know sinks ships resulting in friendships taking a nosedive. Some angry and emotional conversations took place. The friendships are tested in the climax of an alcohol fuelled New Years Eve. An exciting element of the film is that actors improvised scenes through sparsely allocated script points. This process means a refreshing creative freedom for actors.
In the opening scenes I did feel like I was sitting in the corner of the flat in a parallel universe with an inability to talk and join in. I felt a sense of voyeurism; being privy to personal conversations and goings on. There’s no boredom with trivialities because you felt an affinity with it all, a seemingly odd sense of inclusion. The characters themselves grappled with moments of awkwardness. This is not deliberate but adds to the feeling of reality. Many of us have milliseconds of silence and gibber.
The content of the film makes one think of how tenuous relationships are and the hurt people are capable of. In the case of Sophia and Fiona it’s not fireworks that go off.....more like Sophia let’s off an emotional hand grenade that leaves both worlds blown apart. Truth is often stranger than fiction; this is believable with the acts of single mindedness and selfishness involved. Should Sophia have kept quiet is a moral dilemma to add to the moral dilemma itself.
At a different time and situation would all have revealed itself so easily. It’s not just wine that’s spilt; secrets and insults better left untold pour out. Conversations sent emotions reeling and people did get hurt. Did vulnerability in the circumstances lead Zoe to actions she might not normally do. What absurd creatures humans can be!
Which brings me to Dan the only man! ….thrown into the mix of all these women and grated on everyone’s nerves or was it just mine; with his convincing smarminess. He’d tried to ingratiate himself with the women through much of the film.
There’s a mix of everything; what seemed like unrequited love between Lucinda and Summer to feelings of lack of self worth with Fiona’s actions in the mirror scenes.
I enjoyed the film for its unique approach and look forward to future entertaining flicks.
TULLY NEW
Asha Holmes Publicity
RATE: 8/10
The film focuses on Marlo ( played by Charlize Theron) , a mother of two children and the third on the go, her family and kids. She is around 40. Her husband , Drew and her brother try to help her and they hire a nanny Tully to assist her with the newborn baby, looking after two older kids (one of whom is challenged) and with the house duties. Tully is the girl who will help Marlo with the load of work. The relationship between Tully and Marlo take though a different turn to the major surprise to her family. It seems complicated but it is a very truthful picture.
Charlize had to gain 16 more kilos to take this role which she did in a few months. This "mutation" looks very common and simple for Charlize.
Marlo might have a husband but it seems that she lives alone surrounded by her kids. She does not feel alone but she is. Her husband Drrew (Ron Livingston) is there but he does not get a clue what his wife is going through.
Not only Tully cleans the house, looks after Marlo's kids and take care of Marlo herself. She is becoming a significant member of the family,suddenly. Tully (Mark Duplass) is too good t obe true. Tully is young energetic, bubbly, she works with that beautiful smile and the house turns into a paradise in one day of her presence Both girls blend in together so well not only in the film episodes as their roles demand but as actresses - their chemistry is so marvelous and so fun to observe. They do not over-shine each other nor they try to "own:the stage - it is a balanced combination of two female characters indeed. Tully seems to be the best present Marlo ever received. Her involvement is so organic and so natural we suddenly get an idea and it is wild. Tully is the young Marlo. May be there is no Tully?
It is a film about family loneliness in the full house and about the image we carry about ourselves.
Asha Holmes Publicity
RATE: 8/10
The film focuses on Marlo ( played by Charlize Theron) , a mother of two children and the third on the go, her family and kids. She is around 40. Her husband , Drew and her brother try to help her and they hire a nanny Tully to assist her with the newborn baby, looking after two older kids (one of whom is challenged) and with the house duties. Tully is the girl who will help Marlo with the load of work. The relationship between Tully and Marlo take though a different turn to the major surprise to her family. It seems complicated but it is a very truthful picture.
Charlize had to gain 16 more kilos to take this role which she did in a few months. This "mutation" looks very common and simple for Charlize.
Marlo might have a husband but it seems that she lives alone surrounded by her kids. She does not feel alone but she is. Her husband Drrew (Ron Livingston) is there but he does not get a clue what his wife is going through.
Not only Tully cleans the house, looks after Marlo's kids and take care of Marlo herself. She is becoming a significant member of the family,suddenly. Tully (Mark Duplass) is too good t obe true. Tully is young energetic, bubbly, she works with that beautiful smile and the house turns into a paradise in one day of her presence Both girls blend in together so well not only in the film episodes as their roles demand but as actresses - their chemistry is so marvelous and so fun to observe. They do not over-shine each other nor they try to "own:the stage - it is a balanced combination of two female characters indeed. Tully seems to be the best present Marlo ever received. Her involvement is so organic and so natural we suddenly get an idea and it is wild. Tully is the young Marlo. May be there is no Tully?
It is a film about family loneliness in the full house and about the image we carry about ourselves.
CARGO NEW
ABCG Films
RATE: 5/10
It is an Australian made film with the famous Martin Freeman as a leading actor. Surprisingly is it the first film Netflix paid attention to and bought out the rights. It is a zombi film so in a nut shell not my cup of tea. The story line is as follows: in the Apocalyptic time a man faces his face being infected by the strange virus that turns people into zombies.Hee gets infected himself and has only two days (48 hours) to find a shelter for his 1 year old daughter before he joins the rows of zombies himself. He has to fight for the trust with the local Aboriginal community that remained untouched and is not infected to leave his daughter with them. For that he has to travel through a long journey of emotional and physical pain and make good friends with a young teenage girl. Will he succeed?
Andy (Martin Freeman) is in the centre of attention. His acting is magnificent and make the whole picture shine. It is emotional , scary and it is disgusting in many episodes. Andy is a slow releasing bomb: he carries the deadly virus whose actions are unpredictable. His daughter is one year old and she is so innocent she has no idea what is going on. Andy meets Tummy,the aboriginal teenager who is fragile and suspicious to all white nation people. She is also not in good relationship with her own family. Again: beautifully made film that will attract a certain audience for sure and it must be very powerful for its genre but it is not my cup of tea.
ABCG Films
RATE: 5/10
It is an Australian made film with the famous Martin Freeman as a leading actor. Surprisingly is it the first film Netflix paid attention to and bought out the rights. It is a zombi film so in a nut shell not my cup of tea. The story line is as follows: in the Apocalyptic time a man faces his face being infected by the strange virus that turns people into zombies.Hee gets infected himself and has only two days (48 hours) to find a shelter for his 1 year old daughter before he joins the rows of zombies himself. He has to fight for the trust with the local Aboriginal community that remained untouched and is not infected to leave his daughter with them. For that he has to travel through a long journey of emotional and physical pain and make good friends with a young teenage girl. Will he succeed?
Andy (Martin Freeman) is in the centre of attention. His acting is magnificent and make the whole picture shine. It is emotional , scary and it is disgusting in many episodes. Andy is a slow releasing bomb: he carries the deadly virus whose actions are unpredictable. His daughter is one year old and she is so innocent she has no idea what is going on. Andy meets Tummy,the aboriginal teenager who is fragile and suspicious to all white nation people. She is also not in good relationship with her own family. Again: beautifully made film that will attract a certain audience for sure and it must be very powerful for its genre but it is not my cup of tea.
LAST FLAG FLYING
website
RATE: 7/10
The friends were invented one day by god so we do not face our issues alone. Not only issues - life tragedies. Friends share everything with us. Last Flag Flying film focuses on this thought for the entire length f the picture. It is a film about the that solid shoulder feeling that we all need so much in our most darkest hours. Te film is on beautiful memory about simple humanity. The actors are very good and the story line is afar away from trivial. The dialogues are very well designed in the film. It remains n the boarder of very tragic events blended together with witty comedy till the very end of the film. The film is not only about the bitter road trip of friends.It touches the philosophy, the believes and some very deep themes.
Apart from its profound beauty the film however lacks the live realism. We only see the acting after all, the situations are hard to believe in. The film seems light however it touches very serious topics, some of them are so political I would be hesitating to discuss them here . The episodes of the film are all very well filmed but for some reason they did not come together as one whole movie. The final looks more unbelievable rather then real MHO. I would put a question mark on this film.
website
RATE: 7/10
The friends were invented one day by god so we do not face our issues alone. Not only issues - life tragedies. Friends share everything with us. Last Flag Flying film focuses on this thought for the entire length f the picture. It is a film about the that solid shoulder feeling that we all need so much in our most darkest hours. Te film is on beautiful memory about simple humanity. The actors are very good and the story line is afar away from trivial. The dialogues are very well designed in the film. It remains n the boarder of very tragic events blended together with witty comedy till the very end of the film. The film is not only about the bitter road trip of friends.It touches the philosophy, the believes and some very deep themes.
Apart from its profound beauty the film however lacks the live realism. We only see the acting after all, the situations are hard to believe in. The film seems light however it touches very serious topics, some of them are so political I would be hesitating to discuss them here . The episodes of the film are all very well filmed but for some reason they did not come together as one whole movie. The final looks more unbelievable rather then real MHO. I would put a question mark on this film.
THE GATEWAY
website / Backlot Studios / Ned and Co / Rialto Films
RATE: 5/10
THe story line is insredible, the idea is absolutely superb,but unfortunately the excution of it is extremely poor.
The film is not only about time travelling and parallel worlds travelling it is about accepting each other, accepting death and accepting life and it reveals in front of you,be they bad experience or great experiences. The acting is ok from the adult characters but the teenagers could not get it through at all. There are some very weak moments with security of such experiment as travelling between the world and it also looks like the budget for this film was extremely poor. Their equipment looked so outdated and so made out of carton, very unbelievable. The dialogues were quite badly structured. And if you take Th wholistic look at the film you will certainly trust that this one was definitely some kids school end of year project. That would be an A plus for such film but when I see the professionals were making it I feel very sorry for the viewers. My last question is: what did I learn fro, this film apart from time wasting? Not much I guess.
website / Backlot Studios / Ned and Co / Rialto Films
RATE: 5/10
THe story line is insredible, the idea is absolutely superb,but unfortunately the excution of it is extremely poor.
The film is not only about time travelling and parallel worlds travelling it is about accepting each other, accepting death and accepting life and it reveals in front of you,be they bad experience or great experiences. The acting is ok from the adult characters but the teenagers could not get it through at all. There are some very weak moments with security of such experiment as travelling between the world and it also looks like the budget for this film was extremely poor. Their equipment looked so outdated and so made out of carton, very unbelievable. The dialogues were quite badly structured. And if you take Th wholistic look at the film you will certainly trust that this one was definitely some kids school end of year project. That would be an A plus for such film but when I see the professionals were making it I feel very sorry for the viewers. My last question is: what did I learn fro, this film apart from time wasting? Not much I guess.
BREATH THE FILM TO PAY ATTENTION TO
website / Roadshow
RATE: 8/10
Please make sure that you have plenty of time in front of the screen: the film is long.
You can also notice that the filming took lots of effort, LOTS OF EFFORT!
THe film is an adoptation of a novel by Tim Winton called Breath. The film in the nutshell is about two teenage boys who move the boundries of insanity just to avoid the boredom of life. The action takes place in a small city West Of Australia. They befriend an adult surfer.
Simon Baker is a famous Australian actor who is the director of this film. Simon's charisma and his personality attraction are not making up a good film and they never should. Simon is so multileveled you can easily call him Tasmanian Devil. He can be genuiny funny and the next minute he is deeply dramatic. from the absolue careless behaviour to his ntense focus on certain emotion. His beingness as an actor is bottomless indeed. In this film Simon is preswnting himself as I said in two roles: as an actor and as a director. BUt not only that: he is also a script writer for this picture. It is not an easy proces: to create a movie based on a book. We have readers on one side who will always say: the book was better plus there are so many bad projects bsed on this idea.
What do we know about Simon? He loves sea, he loves fresh airand nature. Simon likes swimming. He is a sportsmen in surfing. Simon was surfing himself in the film.
The film is art house,low budget, it is a festiva film, it is a small project.
Simon's project desrves lots of respect soncideriing all the said above.
What else should I say: I highly recommend the film: it is about world discovering by teenagers, extra ordinarity and ordinarity, strange friendship, ambitions, life choices, it is about truth, comlex characters, it is about the puzzle of life, relationship, sport, it is about admiring of the ocean, about surfing, about self growth, about waves and discipline, it is about manhood, it is about balance, it is about movement, it is about challenge, it is abou ocean, utis tragic, it is about love after all.
The cinematogaphy is awesome, some shoots I have no idea how they were created,
It is a good film!
The other actors especially female Elizabeth Debicki who plays Eva is one astonishing beauty, sexual and boyish, calm and powerful.
The boys are also wonderiful.
The nature shots are absolutely stunning as well as the soundtrack to the film.
One note: I think the small town Denmark where the film was made will become a new famous tourist destination.
website / Roadshow
RATE: 8/10
Please make sure that you have plenty of time in front of the screen: the film is long.
You can also notice that the filming took lots of effort, LOTS OF EFFORT!
THe film is an adoptation of a novel by Tim Winton called Breath. The film in the nutshell is about two teenage boys who move the boundries of insanity just to avoid the boredom of life. The action takes place in a small city West Of Australia. They befriend an adult surfer.
Simon Baker is a famous Australian actor who is the director of this film. Simon's charisma and his personality attraction are not making up a good film and they never should. Simon is so multileveled you can easily call him Tasmanian Devil. He can be genuiny funny and the next minute he is deeply dramatic. from the absolue careless behaviour to his ntense focus on certain emotion. His beingness as an actor is bottomless indeed. In this film Simon is preswnting himself as I said in two roles: as an actor and as a director. BUt not only that: he is also a script writer for this picture. It is not an easy proces: to create a movie based on a book. We have readers on one side who will always say: the book was better plus there are so many bad projects bsed on this idea.
What do we know about Simon? He loves sea, he loves fresh airand nature. Simon likes swimming. He is a sportsmen in surfing. Simon was surfing himself in the film.
The film is art house,low budget, it is a festiva film, it is a small project.
Simon's project desrves lots of respect soncideriing all the said above.
What else should I say: I highly recommend the film: it is about world discovering by teenagers, extra ordinarity and ordinarity, strange friendship, ambitions, life choices, it is about truth, comlex characters, it is about the puzzle of life, relationship, sport, it is about admiring of the ocean, about surfing, about self growth, about waves and discipline, it is about manhood, it is about balance, it is about movement, it is about challenge, it is abou ocean, utis tragic, it is about love after all.
The cinematogaphy is awesome, some shoots I have no idea how they were created,
It is a good film!
The other actors especially female Elizabeth Debicki who plays Eva is one astonishing beauty, sexual and boyish, calm and powerful.
The boys are also wonderiful.
The nature shots are absolutely stunning as well as the soundtrack to the film.
One note: I think the small town Denmark where the film was made will become a new famous tourist destination.
ON BODY AND SOUL BEST MOVIE OF THE MONTH
website MBPublicty
Testről és Lélekrőll
RATE: 10/10
It comes to you like a stream of the warm red blood through the veins, like a Gospel. It opens with the nature scene and shows us two deer on he snow. The snow is crispy , the wind blows through their fur. You feel the wetness of the snow flakes, You almost touch the steam coming out of their warm mouths as they breathe life. The scenery is magical and bewitching: there is the lake, surrounded by winter. The lake mirrors the couple of two deer. They search for food under the snow and fallen leaves. Th woodpecker echoes like an old memory in our hearts. The two deer touch each other, their necks meet. We watch them breathless. We can only assume.... The two humans meet in the same night dream. I have goosebumps . Nights dreams are the windows into the other worlds. I have so much to say about it but I want to see what the director will tell me... I do not get disappointed. Episode after the episode the film develops like a mysterious story , fairy tale.
But is there life after waking up in the morning?
The daily routines are monotonous and sober. They narrow down to a small passage to the electrical currency execution, meat flesh labeling beef and conversations with the office psychologist. The transportation line never stops, the death is endless and it is seen in the eyes of the killed animals. There is only one hope: reincarnation perhaps.
Will I find and recognise you in my next one? in my next life?
She is strange. She reminds us the girls from the Paul Delvaux's paintings. She does not speak. He existence is speechless. She remains the same with the decorations changing. She is lonely even with the crowd around. We can only se her face through the glass and there are cars and concrete buildings reflected in this glass too - her mage is forever protected from our eyes.
The film is like hide and seek game, there are mirrors, there are reflections,there are illusion and reincarnations. The feelings are so fragile one can blow on them and they will vanish till the next life time. They are fragile. He looks inside my eyes, I look inside his eyes. Will he recognise me in this life? in this reincarnation? May be through my smile, a familiar glance, lost touches, lost memories ? She deeps her fingers int the mashed potatoes, her bed linen rustles , she buys the music of love, and though the sun rays there is a broken glass of the window and her blood. The blood from her veins.
The essence of life is uncatchable. Its essence in far away from the banal day to day life. Its essence we,humans will never grasp.
Persistently and softly the film takes us on the journey of the life riddle that is hidden in its limitless forms in the memory of the feelings the best that we have from this world when we leave it.
When the body sleeps the soul is awake. It brings two people together into one reality.
But how do you know you re in love? May be you can not take your eyes from someone? Or you can listen to this person endlessly? What exactly tells you "I am in love" ? Yo have not met the person yet but you already know what is going to happen tomorrow... This film is built on actors' performance and they do deliver. If you are an action film lover this film is not for you. It is a festival film. It is deep, it is complex, it is reverent.
Her seen and unseen beauty strikes . Se looks like a female deer. She acts amazingly well. Thur tandem is break-less. He plays perfectly too. I floated together with the characters in their river of feelings and I have not experience any dramatic downfalls - everything was there in the right places.
I liked this film. I gave it 10/10 It also has the best soundtrack.
website MBPublicty
Testről és Lélekrőll
RATE: 10/10
It comes to you like a stream of the warm red blood through the veins, like a Gospel. It opens with the nature scene and shows us two deer on he snow. The snow is crispy , the wind blows through their fur. You feel the wetness of the snow flakes, You almost touch the steam coming out of their warm mouths as they breathe life. The scenery is magical and bewitching: there is the lake, surrounded by winter. The lake mirrors the couple of two deer. They search for food under the snow and fallen leaves. Th woodpecker echoes like an old memory in our hearts. The two deer touch each other, their necks meet. We watch them breathless. We can only assume.... The two humans meet in the same night dream. I have goosebumps . Nights dreams are the windows into the other worlds. I have so much to say about it but I want to see what the director will tell me... I do not get disappointed. Episode after the episode the film develops like a mysterious story , fairy tale.
But is there life after waking up in the morning?
The daily routines are monotonous and sober. They narrow down to a small passage to the electrical currency execution, meat flesh labeling beef and conversations with the office psychologist. The transportation line never stops, the death is endless and it is seen in the eyes of the killed animals. There is only one hope: reincarnation perhaps.
Will I find and recognise you in my next one? in my next life?
She is strange. She reminds us the girls from the Paul Delvaux's paintings. She does not speak. He existence is speechless. She remains the same with the decorations changing. She is lonely even with the crowd around. We can only se her face through the glass and there are cars and concrete buildings reflected in this glass too - her mage is forever protected from our eyes.
The film is like hide and seek game, there are mirrors, there are reflections,there are illusion and reincarnations. The feelings are so fragile one can blow on them and they will vanish till the next life time. They are fragile. He looks inside my eyes, I look inside his eyes. Will he recognise me in this life? in this reincarnation? May be through my smile, a familiar glance, lost touches, lost memories ? She deeps her fingers int the mashed potatoes, her bed linen rustles , she buys the music of love, and though the sun rays there is a broken glass of the window and her blood. The blood from her veins.
The essence of life is uncatchable. Its essence in far away from the banal day to day life. Its essence we,humans will never grasp.
Persistently and softly the film takes us on the journey of the life riddle that is hidden in its limitless forms in the memory of the feelings the best that we have from this world when we leave it.
When the body sleeps the soul is awake. It brings two people together into one reality.
But how do you know you re in love? May be you can not take your eyes from someone? Or you can listen to this person endlessly? What exactly tells you "I am in love" ? Yo have not met the person yet but you already know what is going to happen tomorrow... This film is built on actors' performance and they do deliver. If you are an action film lover this film is not for you. It is a festival film. It is deep, it is complex, it is reverent.
Her seen and unseen beauty strikes . Se looks like a female deer. She acts amazingly well. Thur tandem is break-less. He plays perfectly too. I floated together with the characters in their river of feelings and I have not experience any dramatic downfalls - everything was there in the right places.
I liked this film. I gave it 10/10 It also has the best soundtrack.
A QUIET PLACE
website / Paramount
review by Max Lyons
‘A Quiet Place’ film review.
By Maxwell M. Lyons
--
--
John Krasinski, best known for his comedic role in TV series The Office, showcases his culminating talents as both actor, director, and even co-screenwriter in the new breathtaking thriller (literally) A Quiet Place. With little exposition, the movie follows a family (and cast) of four (4) as they live out their lives in a world forced into silence at the fear of death by an unknown invasive species, blind yet highly adept in hunting by sound alone; hence the movie’s tagline, “If they hear you, they hunt you”.
Whilst deceptively simple, the concept was implemented with great attention to detail; it provoked something of an interesting thought experiment and truly captivated the audience throughout the film’s entire runtime. A mere misplaced footstep could prove life-threatening to the onscreen characters and the silent tension echoed in accordance throughout the cinema; this made ever-more apparent through the vicarious experience of the daughter, suffering from a hearing-impairment. No matter how “silent” the world depicted may have been, when the perspective shifted to her focus and all audio was ceased in alignment with her worldly experience the sharp contrast between our concept of silence and its actuality became unnervingly discernible.
On that note, performances by all cast were fantastic and the cinematic world was aesthetically fitting and narratively inviting; you got to experience how these characters came to adapt into this new world, adding credibility to their portrayed extended survival. Further credit must be paid to Krasinski himself as director for intentionally seeking out an actual hearing-impaired actress to play the likewise impaired daughter, wanting to support underrepresented talent, add authenticity to the character’s performance, and mutually benefit from the personal interactions with the actress — for example, she assisted in teaching fellow cast members sign-language, the primary means of communication throughout the film.
The movie does show some narrative weaknesses in its somewhat abrupt and motivationally questionable ending, and personally, whilst the underlying concept was implemented immensely well, the logical part of my brain couldn’t help but continually further question the logistics (and ultimately perceived flaws) of the presented world. Regardless, the movie was unique in premise, presented a strong narrative, had great performances all round, and ultimately was a very enjoyable watch. Though more thriller than horror, for the easily frightened it may be one to avoid, but for anyone else, I would highly recommend it.
website / Paramount
review by Max Lyons
‘A Quiet Place’ film review.
By Maxwell M. Lyons
--
--
John Krasinski, best known for his comedic role in TV series The Office, showcases his culminating talents as both actor, director, and even co-screenwriter in the new breathtaking thriller (literally) A Quiet Place. With little exposition, the movie follows a family (and cast) of four (4) as they live out their lives in a world forced into silence at the fear of death by an unknown invasive species, blind yet highly adept in hunting by sound alone; hence the movie’s tagline, “If they hear you, they hunt you”.
Whilst deceptively simple, the concept was implemented with great attention to detail; it provoked something of an interesting thought experiment and truly captivated the audience throughout the film’s entire runtime. A mere misplaced footstep could prove life-threatening to the onscreen characters and the silent tension echoed in accordance throughout the cinema; this made ever-more apparent through the vicarious experience of the daughter, suffering from a hearing-impairment. No matter how “silent” the world depicted may have been, when the perspective shifted to her focus and all audio was ceased in alignment with her worldly experience the sharp contrast between our concept of silence and its actuality became unnervingly discernible.
On that note, performances by all cast were fantastic and the cinematic world was aesthetically fitting and narratively inviting; you got to experience how these characters came to adapt into this new world, adding credibility to their portrayed extended survival. Further credit must be paid to Krasinski himself as director for intentionally seeking out an actual hearing-impaired actress to play the likewise impaired daughter, wanting to support underrepresented talent, add authenticity to the character’s performance, and mutually benefit from the personal interactions with the actress — for example, she assisted in teaching fellow cast members sign-language, the primary means of communication throughout the film.
The movie does show some narrative weaknesses in its somewhat abrupt and motivationally questionable ending, and personally, whilst the underlying concept was implemented immensely well, the logical part of my brain couldn’t help but continually further question the logistics (and ultimately perceived flaws) of the presented world. Regardless, the movie was unique in premise, presented a strong narrative, had great performances all round, and ultimately was a very enjoyable watch. Though more thriller than horror, for the easily frightened it may be one to avoid, but for anyone else, I would highly recommend it.
POP AYE
website / Madman
RATE: 7/10
This is the strangest film I have seen s far. The man buys out an elephant from the street artist and believing it is his old friend from his childhood he had for years and was raised with travels with him the Bangkok streets to find his old house. he story is rather allegorical than believable but somehow we all get on to this superficial journey together with the man who happens to be a very famous Thai architect with some unsettled and troublesome relationship wit his wife. This journey takes our hero from one stop alone the road to another, from one adventure to another. We do not follow the purpose of this tip however a sudden realisation takes place: the elephant is a metaphorical representation of his life load that all of us carry around: our past, our unfulfilled dreams and our material load that rather creates more issues than frees us up, well at least many of us.
Thana, the travelling architect as I mentioned before faces some people and places while his trip progresses. They are not really people and place though as he first of all faces his own feelings and reflections of them: be it avarice, neglegence, self-interest, brutality and lust, there are several occasions of positive experiences though of generosity and thankfulness. It is a real life journey and we are so keen to watch the film and wait in anticipation on what is coming next.
It is a very well written and filmed story hat is engaging and very unusual. We learn about different country as well as about the animal behavior and the elephant relations with humans.
website / Madman
RATE: 7/10
This is the strangest film I have seen s far. The man buys out an elephant from the street artist and believing it is his old friend from his childhood he had for years and was raised with travels with him the Bangkok streets to find his old house. he story is rather allegorical than believable but somehow we all get on to this superficial journey together with the man who happens to be a very famous Thai architect with some unsettled and troublesome relationship wit his wife. This journey takes our hero from one stop alone the road to another, from one adventure to another. We do not follow the purpose of this tip however a sudden realisation takes place: the elephant is a metaphorical representation of his life load that all of us carry around: our past, our unfulfilled dreams and our material load that rather creates more issues than frees us up, well at least many of us.
Thana, the travelling architect as I mentioned before faces some people and places while his trip progresses. They are not really people and place though as he first of all faces his own feelings and reflections of them: be it avarice, neglegence, self-interest, brutality and lust, there are several occasions of positive experiences though of generosity and thankfulness. It is a real life journey and we are so keen to watch the film and wait in anticipation on what is coming next.
It is a very well written and filmed story hat is engaging and very unusual. We learn about different country as well as about the animal behavior and the elephant relations with humans.
NTL: JULIUS CEASAR
website / Sharmill
review by Nina Tunaley
JULIUS CAESAR - ***
It was interesting to see a production like this, as you may guess, it is an old William Shakespeare story; kept close to the original dialogue; but delivered with a very menacing modern outlook by director Nicholas Hytner in the Bridge Theatre in London.
This style of performance was not my cup of tea, as I continuously found myself attempting to place the events in current political situations happening around the globe during the performance. This I found distracting, but it may also demonstrate the power of the production and how strong the vision of Shakespeare was.
The Bridge Theatre is set up as a contemporary unit, and in this production the audience becomes the public crowd for the set. As the original script is now placed in modern times I found that replacing swords and spears with gun and cannon to noisy for my liking and this took a bit away from the overall political tragedy in my view.
website / Sharmill
review by Nina Tunaley
JULIUS CAESAR - ***
It was interesting to see a production like this, as you may guess, it is an old William Shakespeare story; kept close to the original dialogue; but delivered with a very menacing modern outlook by director Nicholas Hytner in the Bridge Theatre in London.
This style of performance was not my cup of tea, as I continuously found myself attempting to place the events in current political situations happening around the globe during the performance. This I found distracting, but it may also demonstrate the power of the production and how strong the vision of Shakespeare was.
The Bridge Theatre is set up as a contemporary unit, and in this production the audience becomes the public crowd for the set. As the original script is now placed in modern times I found that replacing swords and spears with gun and cannon to noisy for my liking and this took a bit away from the overall political tragedy in my view.
GURRUMMUL
website / Madman
review by Nina Tunaley
Gurrumul - ****+
Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu passed away in 2017 aged 46. Gurrumul is a documentary (autobiography) about this late, and traditional Australian musician. Is this production by Paul Williams worth seeing? A resounding yes is the answer. It had me captivated from beginning to end; no boring bits just purely interesting.
Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu, who was born blind on Elcho island at the top end of Northern Australia, was a member of the popular Yothu Yindi group and the little known local Saltwater Band. His talent was recognized in a strange fashion by a ‘white fella’ musician who was working in the area.
Gurrumul mostly sung in his local dialect from all the historical and aboriginal life stories he had learnt from his community in early life. His connection to family and community responsibilities proved more motivational than money.
Having to preserve all these small stories and beliefs from the individual traditional communities is a strong theme made through this film and after travelling through this story it is difficult not to agree that the stories and beliefs need saving. The music is fantastic, as are the feelings you gain from it.
website / Madman
review by Nina Tunaley
Gurrumul - ****+
Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu passed away in 2017 aged 46. Gurrumul is a documentary (autobiography) about this late, and traditional Australian musician. Is this production by Paul Williams worth seeing? A resounding yes is the answer. It had me captivated from beginning to end; no boring bits just purely interesting.
Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu, who was born blind on Elcho island at the top end of Northern Australia, was a member of the popular Yothu Yindi group and the little known local Saltwater Band. His talent was recognized in a strange fashion by a ‘white fella’ musician who was working in the area.
Gurrumul mostly sung in his local dialect from all the historical and aboriginal life stories he had learnt from his community in early life. His connection to family and community responsibilities proved more motivational than money.
Having to preserve all these small stories and beliefs from the individual traditional communities is a strong theme made through this film and after travelling through this story it is difficult not to agree that the stories and beliefs need saving. The music is fantastic, as are the feelings you gain from it.
RAMPAGE
website / Roadshow
review by Max Lyons
Recent attempts at cinematic video-game adaptions have been somewhat disappointing to say the least (looking at you Assassin’s Creed). Whilst the latest Tomb Raider may spark the slightest flare of hope in fans, there’s clearly still a long way to go. Rampage — based on the 1986 arcade game of the same name — may not exactly help the cause, but it is highly doubtful it will be of significant detriment either.
Narratively speaking, it’s a bit of a stretch to compare it to its 8bit counterpart, but both do contain a giant gorilla destroying a skyscraper abundant city… so, it’s something I guess. Plot-wise, the movie is cliché, shallow, and nonsensical — a bunch of animals are exposed to a radioactive substance; they grow, mutate, and become uncontrollably angry; and they go try to destroy a city. The only catch, one of those animals is a gorilla named George, and he’s the friend of ex-military-badass-turned-primatologist David (Dwayne Johnson), and no-one is going to hurt George when David’s around; not the evil corporation producing the radioactive substance, not the ignorant cloak and dagger government agencies looking to capture George, and not the army who just want to kill George via wiping out an entire city with nukes. It’s up to ‘The Rock’ to save the world… again… how many movies has it been at this point?
I digress. If you saw the trailer, it is unlikely you were expecting cinematic greatness from the film. Whilst there is a narrative to the film, its main purpose is really only to get you to the last 20 minutes of action, excitement, and explosions. And to that extent, whilst it does drag on at times, the shear over the top inanity of Rampage’s climax is a spectacle in itself. It’s egregiously self-aware beyond all comprehension, endlessly one-uping its own absurdity without falter; there are so many twists and turns even Shyamalan would be taking notes.
Performances were average, the narrative and characters were one-dimensional and epitomised everything cliché, and the first two-thirds of the movie serve little means beyond getting you to the climax. Despite this, there is still much to enjoy about Rampage. If you want cinematic mastery, you’re in the wrong place, but if you can appreciate a decent “so-bad-it’s-good” movie, I’m certain you’ll find some enjoyment in Rampage. I’ll finish by saying that after watching the film I can confidently say my favourite character was George the gorilla, so that should tell you something.
website / Roadshow
review by Max Lyons
Recent attempts at cinematic video-game adaptions have been somewhat disappointing to say the least (looking at you Assassin’s Creed). Whilst the latest Tomb Raider may spark the slightest flare of hope in fans, there’s clearly still a long way to go. Rampage — based on the 1986 arcade game of the same name — may not exactly help the cause, but it is highly doubtful it will be of significant detriment either.
Narratively speaking, it’s a bit of a stretch to compare it to its 8bit counterpart, but both do contain a giant gorilla destroying a skyscraper abundant city… so, it’s something I guess. Plot-wise, the movie is cliché, shallow, and nonsensical — a bunch of animals are exposed to a radioactive substance; they grow, mutate, and become uncontrollably angry; and they go try to destroy a city. The only catch, one of those animals is a gorilla named George, and he’s the friend of ex-military-badass-turned-primatologist David (Dwayne Johnson), and no-one is going to hurt George when David’s around; not the evil corporation producing the radioactive substance, not the ignorant cloak and dagger government agencies looking to capture George, and not the army who just want to kill George via wiping out an entire city with nukes. It’s up to ‘The Rock’ to save the world… again… how many movies has it been at this point?
I digress. If you saw the trailer, it is unlikely you were expecting cinematic greatness from the film. Whilst there is a narrative to the film, its main purpose is really only to get you to the last 20 minutes of action, excitement, and explosions. And to that extent, whilst it does drag on at times, the shear over the top inanity of Rampage’s climax is a spectacle in itself. It’s egregiously self-aware beyond all comprehension, endlessly one-uping its own absurdity without falter; there are so many twists and turns even Shyamalan would be taking notes.
Performances were average, the narrative and characters were one-dimensional and epitomised everything cliché, and the first two-thirds of the movie serve little means beyond getting you to the climax. Despite this, there is still much to enjoy about Rampage. If you want cinematic mastery, you’re in the wrong place, but if you can appreciate a decent “so-bad-it’s-good” movie, I’m certain you’ll find some enjoyment in Rampage. I’ll finish by saying that after watching the film I can confidently say my favourite character was George the gorilla, so that should tell you something.
CHAPPAQUIDDICK
website / MB Publicity
RATE: 7/10
Chappaquiddick is the film about power and how it changes people, how the decisions are made on what to say on public and what not and why, how the public opinion can be changed by a simple headline and the personal issues of those who run his world It is rather intense drama, but to be honest it was not my cup of tea. First of all I do not like politics secondly I do not see the point of me knowing the lies and the truths that no one would find anyway about someone who I do not care about - Ted Kennedy. Would it tell me that the whole family was like that? Would it tell me that only Ted was not honest? Would it tell me that all the politicians are humans and all politicians are the same? No and yes. But I do not care about. Or less I care about Ted. It was a remarkable family or as how we were told about them. I just simply did not see the point. I would give this film 5/10 but gave extra points because I loved the rest of the family.
I find people to be attracted to the story for many reasons bu I would not watch it again.
website / MB Publicity
RATE: 7/10
Chappaquiddick is the film about power and how it changes people, how the decisions are made on what to say on public and what not and why, how the public opinion can be changed by a simple headline and the personal issues of those who run his world It is rather intense drama, but to be honest it was not my cup of tea. First of all I do not like politics secondly I do not see the point of me knowing the lies and the truths that no one would find anyway about someone who I do not care about - Ted Kennedy. Would it tell me that the whole family was like that? Would it tell me that only Ted was not honest? Would it tell me that all the politicians are humans and all politicians are the same? No and yes. But I do not care about. Or less I care about Ted. It was a remarkable family or as how we were told about them. I just simply did not see the point. I would give this film 5/10 but gave extra points because I loved the rest of the family.
I find people to be attracted to the story for many reasons bu I would not watch it again.
TRUTH OR DARE
website / Universal
RATE: 5/10
For me it was a complete waste of time. It is a horror film but apart from audience laughs in the places where everyone was supposed to get scared the film did not get. It was sad and frustrating. The story was wrong,the actors were wrong, the directing was wrong, it all went wrong on so many levels. It was cheap and nothing to take out of it even for a curious teenager. I would not take my kids to watch it especially as the kids have to be raised in the valuable ad not shallow ideas and films with rather undeveloped characters or heroes with no personalities at all who have one purpose only: to sleep with each other. If you are after a disappointment than this is a film for you bu I would prefer to sty on the rich side of emotions.
If the genre of this film is horror than I would say: yes, I had a horrific experience of experiencing something rather boring and dull. The idea on its own was good but badly developed indeed.
website / Universal
RATE: 5/10
For me it was a complete waste of time. It is a horror film but apart from audience laughs in the places where everyone was supposed to get scared the film did not get. It was sad and frustrating. The story was wrong,the actors were wrong, the directing was wrong, it all went wrong on so many levels. It was cheap and nothing to take out of it even for a curious teenager. I would not take my kids to watch it especially as the kids have to be raised in the valuable ad not shallow ideas and films with rather undeveloped characters or heroes with no personalities at all who have one purpose only: to sleep with each other. If you are after a disappointment than this is a film for you bu I would prefer to sty on the rich side of emotions.
If the genre of this film is horror than I would say: yes, I had a horrific experience of experiencing something rather boring and dull. The idea on its own was good but badly developed indeed.
THE ISLE OF DOGS
website / Jacs PR / 20th Century Fox
review by Max Lyons
Director:
Wes Anderson.
Starring:
Bryan Cranston
Greta Gerwig
Jeff Goldblum
Akira Ito
Scarlett-Johansson
F. Murray-Abraham
Bob Balaban
Harvey Keitel
Frances-McDormand
Bill Murray
Mari Natsuki
Yojiro Noda
Kunichi Nomura
Edward Norton
Yoko Ono
Koyu Rankin
Liev Schreiber
Fisher Stevens
Tilda Swinton
Akira Takayama
Courtney B.-Vance
Frank Wood.
Genre:
Animation
Adventure
Comedy.
Rating:
PG.
Running time:
101 Minutes.
Concise Critique:
By Maxwell M. Lyons
Isle of Dogs is the latest film from the brilliantly quirky director Wes Anderson. Following an executive degree by Kobayashi, the newly appointed authoritarian mayor of Megasaki City, Japan — a veiled solution to the public concerns of a canine illness outbreak — all dogs are exiled to Trash Island, the isolated garbage-dump isle off the city’s coast. However, when Atari (Kobayashi’s 12-year-old nephew) crash lands on the isle in attempts to save his bodyguard dog Spot, the hidden agenda of Kobayashi and his scheming political cohorts starts to come to light. With the help of a pack of ravaged dogs, lead by the stubborn yet amiable Chief (Bryan Cranston), they must find Spot and return to the mainland to prevent the untimely demise of all those exiled.
In short, Isle of dogs was nothing less than spectacular. It hosted a star-studded cast and performances were great all round. The stop-motion animation was remarkably impressive, with an exquisite attention to detail. Characters were well-developed for the most part, though not all character arcs were resolved once the movie started focussing on the central narrative climax; an unfortunate foible in an otherwise narratively sound film.
A rather enjoyable quirk of the movie was its firm, almost purist implementation of foreign dialects. Based in Japan, all spoken dialogue by humans was in their native tongue (i.e., mostly Japanese), though without translated subtitles. Some dialogues were translated via an onscreen foreign translator in fitting scenes, such as during broadcasted press conferences, but otherwise all other spoken language became essentially innate, making you rely on non-verbal cues and character reactions to garner the conversation’s subject and significance. It proved quite interesting and added a further depth to the narrative beyond mere delivered exposition. You can rest easy though, the dogs spoke English.
All in all, Isle of Dogs presents another uniquely entertaining animated film by Anderson, unapologetically personifying the quintessence you come to expect from his filmography. On first viewing, I couldn’t say with confidence it surpasses Anderson’s preceding animated work, the critically acclaimed Fantastic Mr Fox (2009), but with such masterful artistry put into every project of his, I have complete self-assurance Isle of Dogs will only exude further enjoyment with every viewing. Highly recommended.
will be released in cinemas Australia-wide on April 12, 2018.
website / Jacs PR / 20th Century Fox
review by Max Lyons
Director:
Wes Anderson.
Starring:
Bryan Cranston
Greta Gerwig
Jeff Goldblum
Akira Ito
Scarlett-Johansson
F. Murray-Abraham
Bob Balaban
Harvey Keitel
Frances-McDormand
Bill Murray
Mari Natsuki
Yojiro Noda
Kunichi Nomura
Edward Norton
Yoko Ono
Koyu Rankin
Liev Schreiber
Fisher Stevens
Tilda Swinton
Akira Takayama
Courtney B.-Vance
Frank Wood.
Genre:
Animation
Adventure
Comedy.
Rating:
PG.
Running time:
101 Minutes.
Concise Critique:
By Maxwell M. Lyons
Isle of Dogs is the latest film from the brilliantly quirky director Wes Anderson. Following an executive degree by Kobayashi, the newly appointed authoritarian mayor of Megasaki City, Japan — a veiled solution to the public concerns of a canine illness outbreak — all dogs are exiled to Trash Island, the isolated garbage-dump isle off the city’s coast. However, when Atari (Kobayashi’s 12-year-old nephew) crash lands on the isle in attempts to save his bodyguard dog Spot, the hidden agenda of Kobayashi and his scheming political cohorts starts to come to light. With the help of a pack of ravaged dogs, lead by the stubborn yet amiable Chief (Bryan Cranston), they must find Spot and return to the mainland to prevent the untimely demise of all those exiled.
In short, Isle of dogs was nothing less than spectacular. It hosted a star-studded cast and performances were great all round. The stop-motion animation was remarkably impressive, with an exquisite attention to detail. Characters were well-developed for the most part, though not all character arcs were resolved once the movie started focussing on the central narrative climax; an unfortunate foible in an otherwise narratively sound film.
A rather enjoyable quirk of the movie was its firm, almost purist implementation of foreign dialects. Based in Japan, all spoken dialogue by humans was in their native tongue (i.e., mostly Japanese), though without translated subtitles. Some dialogues were translated via an onscreen foreign translator in fitting scenes, such as during broadcasted press conferences, but otherwise all other spoken language became essentially innate, making you rely on non-verbal cues and character reactions to garner the conversation’s subject and significance. It proved quite interesting and added a further depth to the narrative beyond mere delivered exposition. You can rest easy though, the dogs spoke English.
All in all, Isle of Dogs presents another uniquely entertaining animated film by Anderson, unapologetically personifying the quintessence you come to expect from his filmography. On first viewing, I couldn’t say with confidence it surpasses Anderson’s preceding animated work, the critically acclaimed Fantastic Mr Fox (2009), but with such masterful artistry put into every project of his, I have complete self-assurance Isle of Dogs will only exude further enjoyment with every viewing. Highly recommended.
will be released in cinemas Australia-wide on April 12, 2018.
THE SONG KEEPERS
website / potential films
RATE: 8/10
review: Susan Reynolds
The Song Keepers
Review by Susan Reynolds
8/10
What a positive and moving experience this was for me; seeing these indigenous Australians with the assistance from some remarkable people take them on a musical journey from remote communities in the Central Australian region to singing across Germany.
Interlaced in the musical theme we hear the accounts from indigenous Australians about their past and the historical place music had. Truly illuminates the powerful presence music can have in the lives of us humans.
Integral to the story was choir leader Morris Stewart who moved to Central Australia in 2006 with his wife Barbara Stewart because she wanted to paint. Morris is from Ghana originally and met his wife when he moved to the UK at 17. Morris was going to see if the people wanted to sing African freedom songs but instead the women have much to reveal to him about music. He learns of a musical history passed through the generations; which dated from June 1877 when German Lutheran missionaries went to assist communities and with them took hymns.
But this is a story not about the imposition of a belief system from that time; instead a focus on music which fostered community spirit. The indigenous peoples took the songs and translated them into their own languages. What they get from Morris is the chance to sing like a real united choir; a bringing together of all the communities to one big group.
(The choirs had dwindled to only one effective small group in the 2006)
Assisting Morris in his endeavours and with process of taking the group overseas was still the Lutheran church. Pastor Albrect organized the logistics for these women who haven’t even birth certificates let alone passports to travel.
It’s not a sad film about the lost generations or focusing on the negative. Instead it’s a feel good film where these people were happy and experienced something which instilled pride and confidence. There was humour when Morris talks about the women not taking their traditional chewing weed through customs…. they joke around with Morris and laugh when he tried to learn their languages. The group sing baa baa black sheep in native language on the tour bus is really interesting.
There are some revealing personal stories from two of the youngest members Nicholas Williams who spoke about still hearing his grandfather singing with him when he sings in the choir. Heather Douglas a young woman told us how the choir saved her from bad choices and gave her a new life.
One does wonder where the choir went after this film; hopefully to recruit more younger members and continue to ignite more passion for music.
website / potential films
RATE: 8/10
review: Susan Reynolds
The Song Keepers
Review by Susan Reynolds
8/10
What a positive and moving experience this was for me; seeing these indigenous Australians with the assistance from some remarkable people take them on a musical journey from remote communities in the Central Australian region to singing across Germany.
Interlaced in the musical theme we hear the accounts from indigenous Australians about their past and the historical place music had. Truly illuminates the powerful presence music can have in the lives of us humans.
Integral to the story was choir leader Morris Stewart who moved to Central Australia in 2006 with his wife Barbara Stewart because she wanted to paint. Morris is from Ghana originally and met his wife when he moved to the UK at 17. Morris was going to see if the people wanted to sing African freedom songs but instead the women have much to reveal to him about music. He learns of a musical history passed through the generations; which dated from June 1877 when German Lutheran missionaries went to assist communities and with them took hymns.
But this is a story not about the imposition of a belief system from that time; instead a focus on music which fostered community spirit. The indigenous peoples took the songs and translated them into their own languages. What they get from Morris is the chance to sing like a real united choir; a bringing together of all the communities to one big group.
(The choirs had dwindled to only one effective small group in the 2006)
Assisting Morris in his endeavours and with process of taking the group overseas was still the Lutheran church. Pastor Albrect organized the logistics for these women who haven’t even birth certificates let alone passports to travel.
It’s not a sad film about the lost generations or focusing on the negative. Instead it’s a feel good film where these people were happy and experienced something which instilled pride and confidence. There was humour when Morris talks about the women not taking their traditional chewing weed through customs…. they joke around with Morris and laugh when he tried to learn their languages. The group sing baa baa black sheep in native language on the tour bus is really interesting.
There are some revealing personal stories from two of the youngest members Nicholas Williams who spoke about still hearing his grandfather singing with him when he sings in the choir. Heather Douglas a young woman told us how the choir saved her from bad choices and gave her a new life.
One does wonder where the choir went after this film; hopefully to recruit more younger members and continue to ignite more passion for music.
LOVELESS A FILM TO PAY ATTENTION TO
website / palace films
RATE: 10/10
This film will disturb you to the maximum. It is another masterpiece from Adrrei Zvyagintsev. What is LOVELESS?
I loved the landscape photography, it was spectacular but sad, reminded me our skiing trips around Istra river. Beautiful but sad.
The lost boy is only shown for 3-4 minutes with one purpose only - parents do not care about hi vanishing, they look for him so casually as if he was not the product of love, and it looks like he was not. We do not care about him either. But even with our "uncare" we care more than his parents.
There is a family shown to us where no one loves each other. They swear, there is no respect. The parents are divorcing but deep inside we understand that with their new "loves" , lovers, with their new families, nothing WILL change, nothing will change, it will be the same uncare and the same unlove.
This happens and this is so much predictable. People divorce when the lesson is not learnt. If the lesson is learnt (by both sides of course) there is not place for divorce. People think that by changing partner they can change themselves. It is impossible. When you start the change you will also see this change in your partner, wife or husband. Because there is no action without re-action. What ever you seed in the family will be final crop. You seed unlove and uncare, you seed selfish behavior - you will get an immediate response: i will multiply reflected in the other person. . Start with yourself.
But both sides have already chosen their destiny. With their choice what was between them: the materialisation of their love should also be destroyed. Thee child should be destroyed. There is no place for him. He is Love and there is no such thing present. We have a feeling that the boy have not disappeared - he was simply not there - no Love, no Boy - so simple
I found some of the parts of the film to be a bit long but I understand the reason: the mood of monotone life is created perfectly by the director! There is no hope in this life routine: it is grey , it is boring and it does not have a ray of light or happiness in it.
Unlove or loveless - it is our every day mood, every day condition. Love happens as a blessing. With some people more often than with the others. It is a ray of light. But I am not talking abut this Love. I am talking abut the love inside of all of us which should be forever present there. If it is not there at all - LOOK FOR IT, but not outside - inside, closer and closer till you find it. This grander love will fix all your relationship including the past ones. It will fix your relationship with yourself first of all. Finally you will realise why your relation did not work in the first place. It was not because of HIM or because of HER, It was because you could not find love inside yourself.
The film will reflect deep inside your soul. You will finally see who you are. Not many will read between the lines, between the episodes, not many will understand why this or that part was filmed , many will say that there were way too many unrequired episodes in this film. It is created as a puzzle. Each scene is responsible for this o that feeling. It is the film to be watched twice.
The child was never there - only Love can maretialise a healthy and happy children. Unloce, Loveless produces nothingness.
The tragedy of the film is not in the lost boy, it is in the lost Love. The characters are lost because they are looking for it everywhere: at their old mother's country house, in the hospitals, morgues, forests, police, streets at their friends' places, in the shopping centtres, inside the old falling apart building - Love is not there. One place they do not look in - is inside themselves.
These people lost something they never had nor they deserved it. Love has to be looked after, it is a hard job, you have to monitor your feelings and thoughts constantly, it is not just there: it has to be nourished daily same way as your child. If you could not find it with your ex-husband or ex-wife the new relationship will never fix it.
One last note: fantastic soundtrack, interesting political news are shown on TV while we observe the scenes of normal day to day household life: the news just show us on a different level - the wars on a different scale, not families ut countries but the idea is the same after all.
I also want those who know Russian language to pay attention on subtitles and how much is lost in translation.
I said it all.
website / palace films
RATE: 10/10
This film will disturb you to the maximum. It is another masterpiece from Adrrei Zvyagintsev. What is LOVELESS?
I loved the landscape photography, it was spectacular but sad, reminded me our skiing trips around Istra river. Beautiful but sad.
The lost boy is only shown for 3-4 minutes with one purpose only - parents do not care about hi vanishing, they look for him so casually as if he was not the product of love, and it looks like he was not. We do not care about him either. But even with our "uncare" we care more than his parents.
There is a family shown to us where no one loves each other. They swear, there is no respect. The parents are divorcing but deep inside we understand that with their new "loves" , lovers, with their new families, nothing WILL change, nothing will change, it will be the same uncare and the same unlove.
This happens and this is so much predictable. People divorce when the lesson is not learnt. If the lesson is learnt (by both sides of course) there is not place for divorce. People think that by changing partner they can change themselves. It is impossible. When you start the change you will also see this change in your partner, wife or husband. Because there is no action without re-action. What ever you seed in the family will be final crop. You seed unlove and uncare, you seed selfish behavior - you will get an immediate response: i will multiply reflected in the other person. . Start with yourself.
But both sides have already chosen their destiny. With their choice what was between them: the materialisation of their love should also be destroyed. Thee child should be destroyed. There is no place for him. He is Love and there is no such thing present. We have a feeling that the boy have not disappeared - he was simply not there - no Love, no Boy - so simple
I found some of the parts of the film to be a bit long but I understand the reason: the mood of monotone life is created perfectly by the director! There is no hope in this life routine: it is grey , it is boring and it does not have a ray of light or happiness in it.
Unlove or loveless - it is our every day mood, every day condition. Love happens as a blessing. With some people more often than with the others. It is a ray of light. But I am not talking abut this Love. I am talking abut the love inside of all of us which should be forever present there. If it is not there at all - LOOK FOR IT, but not outside - inside, closer and closer till you find it. This grander love will fix all your relationship including the past ones. It will fix your relationship with yourself first of all. Finally you will realise why your relation did not work in the first place. It was not because of HIM or because of HER, It was because you could not find love inside yourself.
The film will reflect deep inside your soul. You will finally see who you are. Not many will read between the lines, between the episodes, not many will understand why this or that part was filmed , many will say that there were way too many unrequired episodes in this film. It is created as a puzzle. Each scene is responsible for this o that feeling. It is the film to be watched twice.
The child was never there - only Love can maretialise a healthy and happy children. Unloce, Loveless produces nothingness.
The tragedy of the film is not in the lost boy, it is in the lost Love. The characters are lost because they are looking for it everywhere: at their old mother's country house, in the hospitals, morgues, forests, police, streets at their friends' places, in the shopping centtres, inside the old falling apart building - Love is not there. One place they do not look in - is inside themselves.
These people lost something they never had nor they deserved it. Love has to be looked after, it is a hard job, you have to monitor your feelings and thoughts constantly, it is not just there: it has to be nourished daily same way as your child. If you could not find it with your ex-husband or ex-wife the new relationship will never fix it.
One last note: fantastic soundtrack, interesting political news are shown on TV while we observe the scenes of normal day to day household life: the news just show us on a different level - the wars on a different scale, not families ut countries but the idea is the same after all.
I also want those who know Russian language to pay attention on subtitles and how much is lost in translation.
I said it all.
THE GUERNSEY LITERARY AND POTATO PEEL PIE SOCIETY A FILM TO PAY ATTENTION TO
website / studiocanal
RATE: 8/10
I s London after the WWII. The young writer Juliet is trying to find a theme for her new book. he does not want to go to the horrors of war nor she wants to write on any other subjects as all of them seem way too boring or not acceptable for her. Nothing inspires her. One day she receives a letter from a pig farmer in Guernsey Island. She is rather surprised ; who would know that even the pig farmers could like to read. But more out of all she is fascinated by the personality of her correspondent: Dawsey. Dawsey get hold of the book that belonged to Juliet some time ago. He asks Juliet to recommend him a book store where he can find something dissent to read. He also let Juliet know that the Island lacks good books. The life on the island just getting in its war-less state after the occupation. The letter from Dawsey and their later exchange of letters changes Julie's life in the most unexpected way.
The history of the society that went undercover during the Nazi occupation of the island was amazing. The society was a breath of fresh air for the islanders at the hardest times of their lives. Juliet is so passionate about the history, the society and its members that nothing else exists for her in this world any more. She forgets about her engagement, she is inspired but will that new path be the path of happiness?
That is for you to find out when you watch the film
If you like classical literature and reading this is YOUR film
website / studiocanal
RATE: 8/10
I s London after the WWII. The young writer Juliet is trying to find a theme for her new book. he does not want to go to the horrors of war nor she wants to write on any other subjects as all of them seem way too boring or not acceptable for her. Nothing inspires her. One day she receives a letter from a pig farmer in Guernsey Island. She is rather surprised ; who would know that even the pig farmers could like to read. But more out of all she is fascinated by the personality of her correspondent: Dawsey. Dawsey get hold of the book that belonged to Juliet some time ago. He asks Juliet to recommend him a book store where he can find something dissent to read. He also let Juliet know that the Island lacks good books. The life on the island just getting in its war-less state after the occupation. The letter from Dawsey and their later exchange of letters changes Julie's life in the most unexpected way.
The history of the society that went undercover during the Nazi occupation of the island was amazing. The society was a breath of fresh air for the islanders at the hardest times of their lives. Juliet is so passionate about the history, the society and its members that nothing else exists for her in this world any more. She forgets about her engagement, she is inspired but will that new path be the path of happiness?
That is for you to find out when you watch the film
If you like classical literature and reading this is YOUR film
PACIFIC RIM: UPRISING
website / universal
review by Max Lyons
Director:
Steven DeKnight.
Starring:
John Boyega
Scott Eastwood
Jing Tian
Cailee Spaeny
Rinko Kikuchi
Charlie Day
Burn Gorman
Adria Arjona.
Genre:
Action
Adventure
Sci-Fi.
Rating:
M.
Running time:
111 Minutes.
Concise Critique:
By Maxwell M. Lyons
If you were a fan of the first Pacific Rim (2013), chances are you were giddy with anticipation at the prospect of an over-the-top higher-budget sequel. One that embodied all the elements that made the first movie so enjoyable; a movie that is well-executed (despite narrative shortcomings) but still hilariously self-aware of its own inanity… only bigger. Pacific Rim: Uprising comes close to hitting the mark but falls just short of capturing the magic that made its predecessor so widely loved.
For the uninitiated, Pacific Rim at its heart presents a simple premise — giant (human-piloted) robots versus giant monsters, or Jaegers versus Kaiju, respectively. These films are not without narrative of course, but it was never meant to be the primary allure, and therein lies one of Uprising’s greatest flaws — more on that later.
To start with, one of the better aspects of the film is the performance of lead actor John Boyega. Coming fresh off the latest instalment of the new-age Star Wars trilogy, Boyega continues to demonstrate his acting prowess as he plays Jake Pentecost, the less-than-solemn son of Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba of Pacific Rim), the dignified self-sacrificing hero of this film’s prequel. Jake is cavalier and morally-questionable by comparison, surviving as a “junker”, stealing and selling scrapped Jaeger parts. Following a chance encounter and an impromptu police-chase alongside reluctant accomplice Amara (Cailee Spaeny) — girl-genius Jaeger bootlegger — the duo find themselves forced into Jaeger pilot school. It is here the movie’s storyline really starts to take shape.
A decade has passed since the events of Pacific Rim, and the world is without threat of Kaiju, yet even still forces of Jaeger and next-generation trainee pilots wait in pre-emption of their return (or that of a similar evil). With such worldly tensions alleviated, the first hour or so of Uprising finds itself developing its narrative and injecting suspense through Top Gun-esk cadet rivalries and story-arcs of corporate espionage. It’s understandable the film has to provide some storyline and character exposition to bridge the timeline gap between the films and set up forthcoming conflict, but in doing so it introduces a handful of throwaway cast, adds dramatic but ultimately frivolous conflicts that amount to little, and drags the film out unnecessarily – consequently, the pacing is quite inconsistent, especially when the actual action showcases rear their heads.
Don’t worry, the creatures from the Black Lagoon Breach do eventually come, and the mech v. lusus naturae battles are everything you would expect them to be — I’m talking ridiculously absurd, unnecessarily excessive, and satisfyingly visceral in all the right ways. It’s just a bit of a shame that Uprising felt it needed to justify itself from a narrative standpoint any more than the original Pacific Rim. The original wasn’t so widely loved for its narrative, so why try to change that now?
Narratively speaking, both Pacific Rim and Uprising are laughably horrid — characters are one-dimensional, character development is minimal, character-types are markedly unoriginal, dialogue is cliché, and exposition is lazily thrown about. The difference is Uprising took itself too seriously and lost sight of its own inanity. Perhaps it might have something to do with the absence of original director and creator Guillermo del Toro, replaced instead with television veteran Steven S. DeKnight (Angel, Smallville). Uprising is DeKnight’s Hollywood movie directorial debut.
In the end, if Pacific Rim was never your cup of tea, chances are Uprising won’t be either. But like myself, if you were a fan of the prequel, chances are you will be able to find some enjoyment in Uprising. It may not be quite as good, but if you can look past the movie’s earnestness, the Jaeger-Kaiju battles are well worth the drudgery.
will be released in cinemas Australia-wide on March 22, 2018.
website / universal
review by Max Lyons
Director:
Steven DeKnight.
Starring:
John Boyega
Scott Eastwood
Jing Tian
Cailee Spaeny
Rinko Kikuchi
Charlie Day
Burn Gorman
Adria Arjona.
Genre:
Action
Adventure
Sci-Fi.
Rating:
M.
Running time:
111 Minutes.
Concise Critique:
By Maxwell M. Lyons
If you were a fan of the first Pacific Rim (2013), chances are you were giddy with anticipation at the prospect of an over-the-top higher-budget sequel. One that embodied all the elements that made the first movie so enjoyable; a movie that is well-executed (despite narrative shortcomings) but still hilariously self-aware of its own inanity… only bigger. Pacific Rim: Uprising comes close to hitting the mark but falls just short of capturing the magic that made its predecessor so widely loved.
For the uninitiated, Pacific Rim at its heart presents a simple premise — giant (human-piloted) robots versus giant monsters, or Jaegers versus Kaiju, respectively. These films are not without narrative of course, but it was never meant to be the primary allure, and therein lies one of Uprising’s greatest flaws — more on that later.
To start with, one of the better aspects of the film is the performance of lead actor John Boyega. Coming fresh off the latest instalment of the new-age Star Wars trilogy, Boyega continues to demonstrate his acting prowess as he plays Jake Pentecost, the less-than-solemn son of Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba of Pacific Rim), the dignified self-sacrificing hero of this film’s prequel. Jake is cavalier and morally-questionable by comparison, surviving as a “junker”, stealing and selling scrapped Jaeger parts. Following a chance encounter and an impromptu police-chase alongside reluctant accomplice Amara (Cailee Spaeny) — girl-genius Jaeger bootlegger — the duo find themselves forced into Jaeger pilot school. It is here the movie’s storyline really starts to take shape.
A decade has passed since the events of Pacific Rim, and the world is without threat of Kaiju, yet even still forces of Jaeger and next-generation trainee pilots wait in pre-emption of their return (or that of a similar evil). With such worldly tensions alleviated, the first hour or so of Uprising finds itself developing its narrative and injecting suspense through Top Gun-esk cadet rivalries and story-arcs of corporate espionage. It’s understandable the film has to provide some storyline and character exposition to bridge the timeline gap between the films and set up forthcoming conflict, but in doing so it introduces a handful of throwaway cast, adds dramatic but ultimately frivolous conflicts that amount to little, and drags the film out unnecessarily – consequently, the pacing is quite inconsistent, especially when the actual action showcases rear their heads.
Don’t worry, the creatures from the Black Lagoon Breach do eventually come, and the mech v. lusus naturae battles are everything you would expect them to be — I’m talking ridiculously absurd, unnecessarily excessive, and satisfyingly visceral in all the right ways. It’s just a bit of a shame that Uprising felt it needed to justify itself from a narrative standpoint any more than the original Pacific Rim. The original wasn’t so widely loved for its narrative, so why try to change that now?
Narratively speaking, both Pacific Rim and Uprising are laughably horrid — characters are one-dimensional, character development is minimal, character-types are markedly unoriginal, dialogue is cliché, and exposition is lazily thrown about. The difference is Uprising took itself too seriously and lost sight of its own inanity. Perhaps it might have something to do with the absence of original director and creator Guillermo del Toro, replaced instead with television veteran Steven S. DeKnight (Angel, Smallville). Uprising is DeKnight’s Hollywood movie directorial debut.
In the end, if Pacific Rim was never your cup of tea, chances are Uprising won’t be either. But like myself, if you were a fan of the prequel, chances are you will be able to find some enjoyment in Uprising. It may not be quite as good, but if you can look past the movie’s earnestness, the Jaeger-Kaiju battles are well worth the drudgery.
will be released in cinemas Australia-wide on March 22, 2018.
TOMB RAIDER
website
review; Max Lyons
Director:
Roar Uthaug.
Starring:
Alicia Vikander
Walton Goggins
Dominic West
Daniel Wu
Kristin Scott-Thomas.
Genre:
Action
Adventure.
Rating:
M.
Running time:
118 Minutes.
Movie Review:
By Maxwell M. Lyons
Lara Croft has come a long way since her 1996 debut, polygon assets and all. Though the original cinematic adaptions of the early 200s found modest success, it seemed almost inevitable a reboot would be in the works given the recent resurgence in cinematic video-game adaptions in addition to the 2013 game franchise reboot. With a finely crafted narrative, stunning visual references, and more than enough material to last a saga of sequels, you’d think it would be a fairly straightforward formula for success, yet surprisingly even so much as a half-decent virtual-to-screen conversion has alluded filmmakers unwittingly for years now. So, is Tomb Raider the one they finally get right? Well, it’s not perfect, but it’s still noticeably a cut above the rest, and through its flaws remains a fairly entertaining watch.
In essence, Tomb Raider loosely follows the story of its 2013 graphical reboot: Lara Croft (Alicia Vikander), the fiercely independent daughter of missing (and presumed dead) business mogul Richard Croft (Dominic West), travels to an exiled island in search of her father. It is here she’s pushed to her limits as she finds herself in the midst of an excavation, led by the merciless Mathias Vogel (Walton Goggins), to unleash the dormant powers hidden within the island’s mythical tomb.
Narratively speaking, the movie is a bit choppy and certainly slows at times once Lara hits the island. Preceding this her character is fairly well developed and the film’s pacing moved quickly in accordance with her adventurous and locomotive personality, but once the midpoint is reached it falls into a bit of a lull. The climax does pick things back up, but the inconsistency is a little jarring. Furthermore, aside from Lara herself, there not a whole lot of character depth — henchmen are big, brooding, and interchangeable; Mathias’s fixation on the tomb’s treasure is unjustified at best and gratuitous at worst; Richard is presented as loving but morally conflicted without sufficient justification; and the main supporting character to Lara, Lu Ren (Daniel Wu), is all but forgotten about following the second act. Even Lara herself is undercut by her supposed fixation around everything to do with her father; yes, he is important to her backstory and current motivations, but it seems at times to be her only driving force.
Despite this, Vikander performance as Lara was thrilling to watch, going so far as to perform most of her own stunts. Her acting talents and emotional depth made the character more believable and she was by far the stand out of the entire cast. Furthermore, on the matter of stunts and action, the balance between video-game physics and real-world plausibility rode a fine line and brought an excitement and tension to scenes that, though stretched the imagination, did so within reason and firmly grounded themselves within the realms of reality. These were undoubtedly the most entertaining parts of the film.
In the end, Tomb Raider may have been less than perfect, but it sets a respectable precedent for future adaptations to improve upon. Was it amazing, not really. Was it better than any other video-game adaption as of late, most certainly. I can applaud it as commendable in this respect, however, as a standalone film, it’s relative admirability doesn’t make it overly praiseworthy. There’s entertainment to be had, but ultimately, it’s little more than a mindless watch. I would probably wait until it comes to Netflix.
will be released in cinemas Australia-wide on March 15, 2018.
website
review; Max Lyons
Director:
Roar Uthaug.
Starring:
Alicia Vikander
Walton Goggins
Dominic West
Daniel Wu
Kristin Scott-Thomas.
Genre:
Action
Adventure.
Rating:
M.
Running time:
118 Minutes.
Movie Review:
By Maxwell M. Lyons
Lara Croft has come a long way since her 1996 debut, polygon assets and all. Though the original cinematic adaptions of the early 200s found modest success, it seemed almost inevitable a reboot would be in the works given the recent resurgence in cinematic video-game adaptions in addition to the 2013 game franchise reboot. With a finely crafted narrative, stunning visual references, and more than enough material to last a saga of sequels, you’d think it would be a fairly straightforward formula for success, yet surprisingly even so much as a half-decent virtual-to-screen conversion has alluded filmmakers unwittingly for years now. So, is Tomb Raider the one they finally get right? Well, it’s not perfect, but it’s still noticeably a cut above the rest, and through its flaws remains a fairly entertaining watch.
In essence, Tomb Raider loosely follows the story of its 2013 graphical reboot: Lara Croft (Alicia Vikander), the fiercely independent daughter of missing (and presumed dead) business mogul Richard Croft (Dominic West), travels to an exiled island in search of her father. It is here she’s pushed to her limits as she finds herself in the midst of an excavation, led by the merciless Mathias Vogel (Walton Goggins), to unleash the dormant powers hidden within the island’s mythical tomb.
Narratively speaking, the movie is a bit choppy and certainly slows at times once Lara hits the island. Preceding this her character is fairly well developed and the film’s pacing moved quickly in accordance with her adventurous and locomotive personality, but once the midpoint is reached it falls into a bit of a lull. The climax does pick things back up, but the inconsistency is a little jarring. Furthermore, aside from Lara herself, there not a whole lot of character depth — henchmen are big, brooding, and interchangeable; Mathias’s fixation on the tomb’s treasure is unjustified at best and gratuitous at worst; Richard is presented as loving but morally conflicted without sufficient justification; and the main supporting character to Lara, Lu Ren (Daniel Wu), is all but forgotten about following the second act. Even Lara herself is undercut by her supposed fixation around everything to do with her father; yes, he is important to her backstory and current motivations, but it seems at times to be her only driving force.
Despite this, Vikander performance as Lara was thrilling to watch, going so far as to perform most of her own stunts. Her acting talents and emotional depth made the character more believable and she was by far the stand out of the entire cast. Furthermore, on the matter of stunts and action, the balance between video-game physics and real-world plausibility rode a fine line and brought an excitement and tension to scenes that, though stretched the imagination, did so within reason and firmly grounded themselves within the realms of reality. These were undoubtedly the most entertaining parts of the film.
In the end, Tomb Raider may have been less than perfect, but it sets a respectable precedent for future adaptations to improve upon. Was it amazing, not really. Was it better than any other video-game adaption as of late, most certainly. I can applaud it as commendable in this respect, however, as a standalone film, it’s relative admirability doesn’t make it overly praiseworthy. There’s entertainment to be had, but ultimately, it’s little more than a mindless watch. I would probably wait until it comes to Netflix.
will be released in cinemas Australia-wide on March 15, 2018.